Corporations need lawyers

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50, NUMBER 18

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF MAY 9, 2025

TRIAL COURT ABUSED DISCRETION IN GRANTING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BEFORE STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ PLEADINGS FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT—BECAUSE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS MAY NOT BE HEARD EXCEPT THROUGH AUTHORIZED COUNSEL, THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS BY LEAVING IT UNREPRESENTED

Lamaze v. Guthrie, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D984 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 30, 2025):

In this case involving a dispute over the rights to show horses for investment purposes, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant investors bought the horses for prices much lower than they had represented to the plaintiffs, pocketing the difference.

Two days after filing their complaint, the plaintiffs moved for an ex parte prejudgment writ of attachment and garnishment, alleging that the defendants were dissipating their assets and removing property from Florida to thwart execution of an ultimate judgment against them. The trial court granted both writs.

The defendants then filed an emergency motion to dissolve the writs, claiming that one of the defendants was suffering from brain cancer and needed to travel to Belgium for treatment, which would not be possible without dissolving the writs because the defendant’s bank account was frozen. The trial court held an emergency hearing where the defendant testified with respect to his medical issues. The trial court then dissolved the writs, which were also challenged substantively, but the trial court did not mention the medical issues.

The plaintiffs then sought rehearing on the writs and there was significant back and forth. Ultimately, the defendants’ attorney moved to withdraw, citing irreconcilable differences.

Several weeks later, the plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants’ pleadings as a sanction for fraud on the court, asserting that one of the defendants had submitted a forged letter and lied about receiving brain cancer treatments.

The ultimate ruling in the case was that the trial court could strike the defendants’ pleadings for fraud on the court but should not have granted the attorney’s motion to withdraw prior to so doing.

Non-attorney corporate representatives are not authorized to represent corporations in lieu of counsel. Unlike a corporation, a natural person may proceed pro se and therefore the withdrawal of an attorney does not give the client an absolute right to a continuance. Here, the trial court should not have proceeded with an adversarial hearing immediately after granting corporate counsel’s motion to withdraw. As the defendants, through their withdrawing attorney did request a continuance of the proceedings, there was no prejudice to have continued the hearing to allow the corporation to obtain a new lawyer instead of requiring it to defend the hearing without counsel.

COURT AFFIRMS AMENDMENT FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES—BUT NOT IN AN INJURY CASE

Collado v. Collado, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D999 (Fla. 3rd DCA Apr. 30, 2025):

The defendants in this commercial case appealed the trial court’s non-final order granting the plaintiff as personal representative of the estate of the decedent leave to amend the complaint to allege a claim for punitive damages against the decedent’s father, sister and the corporate entity owned by them.

While there are no facts in the opinion, the court concluded there was no error in the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff made a reasonable showing by evidence in the record which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages, and affirmed the ruling allowing the amendment.